About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
question is what actually happened here. i had a lengthy discussion with secretary clinton today, and she reiterated that we want to make sure, and i agree with her, that we get to the bottom of this. the family of ambassador stevens deserved more. the three other public servants who were killed deserve more. and we're going to get to the bottom of it, no matter how petty it may get with regard to our colleagues. >> last week i pressed chairman issa on why he was holding the hearings now. and i said is it political, why would you do it before the election? and he made the argument back to me, if we don't get this right and we don't know what happened, this could happen again somewhere else. and that if we were caught flat-footed as the united states of america, that that's unacceptable. and there's no reason to put a hearing off. and it seemed a fair argument. are you all right with him holding a hearing now? do you buy that argument? why put it off until after the election? >> yeah. no, i don't buy that argument. look at what the senate has done. first they have acted in a bipartisan way
clinton is responsible and everybody else. the vice president was stating a fact. the normal routine matters in how you balance the level of security at 100-plus diplomatic posts around the world. those decisions are made day to day, week to week at the state department. so i don't see a contradiction between you what said and the vice president said. >> you didn't think it at all strange last night that he basically said i don't know anything about it? >> i understood this was not the detail that would come to the white house unless there was a significant policy issue or policy dispute. >> the first ambassador killed in 33 years, where does the buck stop? >> it should stop in the oval office. i agree with p.j. in the sense that they may not have been briefed, but it would have been nice that the vice president said i understand this decision may have been made at a lower level, but i'm vice president of the united states and i take responsibility for what happened in libya, that would have been the right thing to do. >> is the white house backed in a corner. i'm curious, because if
and works its way down. barack obama's responsible, joe biden's responsible, hillary clinton's responsible and so forth. as to the decision itself, the the vice president was stating a fact. that normal routine matters in terms of how you balance the level of security at 100 plus diplomatic posts around the world, those decisions are made day-to-day, week to week at the state department. so, i don't see a contradiction between what you've said and what the vice president said. >> you didn't think it at all strange last night when asked well, i didn't know anything about it? >> i understood completely this would not be a operational detail that would necessarily come to the white house or to the national security council unless there is a very significant policy issue or dispute. >> peter, first ambassador killed in 33 years in this line of duty in this country. where does the buck stop? >> it should stop in the oval office. i agree in the sense they may not have been briefed with it, but it would have been nice if the vice president would have said last nht, i understand decisions may have
of speech for president clinton, ryan. you couldn't even restrain yourself from rolling your eyes there. >> you know, i think that actually it's good for president obama to seem humble and thoughtful and hey, i didn't have a great night. i personally don't think that was the key problem. i think that mitt romney was bet e prepared, but also, president obama has a tough time defending his record when he's confronted with someone who's nimble and more moderate. so i think that was fundament fundamentally awkward. i think the idea that barack obama were to call out mitt romney for lying, it's very popular with the democratic base. those persuadable swing voters might find that unpleasant. so it's a sensible thipg for him to say on a radio show, but in reality, i'm not sure if that would make president obama seem appealing. >> i have to say michael from the focus group, what i saw, that is going to play much better. 39 people. but anytime someone said someone was a liar, dishonest, people don't like hearing it. >> he needs to find a way to explain among other thing, why he had a bad night a
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)